Friday, September 23, 2011

Loving God with our Minds: A Series in Logic. Part 2

In this series, I intend to highlight 2 – 3 fallacies in each post. In this post, we'll be looking at two of the most commonly used logical fallacies: Ad hominem and the appeal to authority

ARGUMENTUM AD HOMINEM

The first logical fallacy a Christian is likely to encounter when defending the faith is argumentumad hominem – usually abbreviated to ad hominem.Ad hominem is a Latin term that literally means “to the man” (or so I'm told since I don't read Latin). It occurs when someone responds not to an argument but to the person making the argument. This is, by far, the most common tactic employed by the critic and is usually used in one of two ways: the ordinary insult and to undermine the speaker.

Ordinary insults are just that. The critic will say things like, “Creationists are stupid”; “Christians are gullible”; “Ken Ham is a charlatan”; etc. None of these things are an argument or proof of anything. Instead, they are the simple rantings of the critic who speaks them. Insults are easy to spot so there is not much need to explain how to recognize them. Just keep in mind that no matter how they are used, insults do not add anything to the discussion.

The other form of ad hominem is a little more subtle. Instead of directly insulting the Christian, a critic will make a statement meant to undermine the Christian's credibility. I hear this most often when critics attempt to point out that I'm “not a scientist” and therefore suggest – either overtly or by implication – I am not qualified to judge their theory. Of course, simply not being a scientist by itself isn't proof that anything I've said is wrong. I could say, “it's raining”; does the fact that I'm not a meteorologist somehow prove it's not raining?

Ad hominem is also used to diminish a written article. Besides attacking the author of the article, evolutionists will also tout the fact that the article wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal and so (allege) the article is suspect and not worthy of consideration. Again, the simple fact that something has not been peer reviewed is not evidence that it is wrong.

Careful arguments are what make a debate. The truth of what is said seldom rests on the person who speaks them. Even if a person is a habitual liar, that fact alone is not proof that any particular thing he said is a lie.

When your opponent does not respond to your points but, instead, attacks you then it is usually a sign of desperation. He either has no rebuttal or he believes his best rebuttal is to merely insult you. Don't get caught up in these bad arguments. When someone insults you, your first instinct will be to defend yourself. This often leads to a lengthy discussion that isn't directly related to the topic at hand. A better response will be to point out to your opponent that he hasn't answered your arguments. Let him know that he is making a fool of himself.

Finally, remember the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:11, “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.” The insults with which the critic intends harm actually bring you a blessing!

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY

The second fallacy we'll look at is the appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiamin Latin). This is sort of the opposite of ad hominem – instead of discrediting the person who makes the argument, the critic appeals to the credentials of the person making the argument (often it's himself). It goes something like this: Authority “A” believes “X” is true so therefore “X” is true.

This fallacy often seems to have legs because we sometimes seek the opinions of experts. If I'm sick, I don't necessarily rely on a diagnosis from my mother-in-law. Instead, I seek out an opinion from a doctor. Because the doctor has been trained in medicine, I give his diagnosis more weight.

The reason this is a fallacy is because even experts can be wrong. The truth is objective and something isn't true simply because some expert says it's true. Even if a majority of experts agree, it still doesn't make it true. Take a look at this old advertisement. Look at all those physicians who said that Lucky Strike cigarettes are less irritating. Since these people are doctors, then it must be true, right? Wrong!

The appeal to authority is often employed in the creation v. evolution debate. I've heard it claimed, more than once, that 99% of scientists believe evolution is true. That statistic is a flat out lie – 99% of scientists cannot agree on anything. But even if the statistic were true, it still doesn't prove anything. In Galileo's day, the majority of scientists still believed the Ptolemaic model of the universe.

On a little more personal level, I've had many evolutionists tell me their credentials as though it's proof of something. Sometimes, they're college students who are studying some related field but occasionally they are practicing scientists with PhD's in their discipline. This might intimidate some people but it shouldn't. Consider these two quotes:

“There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” Albert Einstein, 1932

"The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives," Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project.

These were made by people whose opinions we might trust. Nevertheless, they were wrong. In that same manner, even a PhD biologist is wrong about evolution. I don't care how smart someone is or how many degrees he has or how many scientists agree with him – none of this proves he is right.

As above, careful arguments are what make a debate. In the creation v. evolution debate, we need to discuss the evidence and our theory. Don't get carried away with the credentials of the person making the argument. It's not proof of anything.

2 comments:

Note that an argumentum ad hominem is more than an insult. "Creationists are stupid" is an insult (and if all creationists are meant to be included, a falsehood). But even stupid people can be right sometimes, so by itself this statement is not necessarily offered as a reason creationism is wrong. On the other hand, an ad hominem may be a valid response to an argument from authority: if the only reason you offer for accepting some thesis is someone's personal moral authority or expertise, an attack on his morals or expertise would seem to sufficiently rebut your argument.

You say that you don't think 99% of scientists agree on anything. Do you think that more than 1% reject, e.g. the idea that matter is made up of atoms, or that the Earth orbits the sun? When one considers that in 1987, Newsweek found about 700 scientists in the life or earth sciences who supported creation science, out of 480,000 geologists and biologists in the United States, that 99% figure sounds fairly plausible.

And if that doesn't impress you, do you think science is of any value at all? If the overwhelming acceptance of some conclusion by the people most familiar with the evidence is no reason to accept the evidence, then why exactly should anyone bother doing science at all? Yes, the majority of scientists in Galileo's day were wrong. A century and a half later, though, they'd pretty much all come around to his position; new data supporting his position had won the day. Likewise with evolution: you're assuming that scientists were closer to the truth when they knew much less than they are now.

You said, “Note that an argumentum ad hominemis more than an insult. "Creationists are stupid" is an insult (and if all creationists are meant to be included, a falsehood). But even stupid people can be right sometimes, so by itself this statement is not necessarily offered as a reason creationism is wrong.”

You've summed up fairly well why ad hominem is a fallacy. Even stupid people can be right so calling someone stupid isn't evidence of anything. It doesn't address the argument. It is “against the man.”

You said, “On the other hand, an ad hominem may be a valid response to an argument from authority: if the only reason you offer for accepting some thesis is someone's personal moral authority or expertise, an attack on his morals or expertise would seem to sufficiently rebut your argument.”

The appeal to authority is a logically fallacy in itself. Just because someone has a degree, for example, that is not evidence that something he believes is correct. To attempt to diminish his argument by questioning his credentials would actually give merit to his fallacious argument. What if his credentials are impeccable? Would that mean he must be right?

To use one fallacy to rebut another fallacy is also a fallacy. It's sometimes called, “two wrongs make a right” or “you too.”

You said, “You say that you don't think 99% of scientists agree on anything. Do you think that more than 1% reject, e.g. the idea that matter is made up of atoms, or that the Earth orbits the sun? When one considers that in 1987, Newsweek found about 700 scientists in the life or earth sciences who supported creation science, out of 480,000 geologists and biologists in the United States, that 99% figure sounds fairly plausible.”

I might concede that 99% of evolutionary biologists might believe in evolution. However, the “hasty generalization” that 99% of “scientists” (no discipline is normally named) believe in evolution is an invented stat. I've heard it repeated many times and occasionally Gallup is cited but I've never seen any such poll in spite of years of searching for it. If you can find a scientific survey indicating such, I would greatly appreciate a link to it.

I once read a survey of medical doctors and their opinions on human origins. It broke down their views on human origins according to their religious beliefs. One crazy stat I remember reading in the poll was that not even 100% of ATHEIST doctors believed in evolution.

You said, “And if that doesn't impress you, do you think science is of any value at all?”

I'm not impressed. Many times I have pointed out the naturalistic presuppositions boldly espoused by secular scientists. They're not coy about it. Rather, they trumpet it as a fundamental tenet of science. If you reject supernatural explanations a priori, you have no other choice but to invent natural explanations for everything.

But yes, I think science has value. I think evolution has no value and science would not suffer in the least if every scientist realized that evolution is bunk.

RKBentley

About me

I'm a husband, a father, and a Christian. Being a Christian is not something I do on Sundays but rather it is who I am. My faith influences everything I do. Christians are commanded to always be ready to give an answer – a reason for the hope that is in us. I take that command seriously. Psalm 19:7 says that the testimony of the LORD is sure. If we base all of our thinking on the Bible, we can't go wrong. I started this blog to encourage other Christians and challenge critics on a variety of issues. Whether you agree or disagree with me, you're welcome here. Please follow me on Twitter and friend me on FaceBook! God bless!!